Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Washington Post integrates Talk – Mozilla’s open-source commenting platform

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 347 posts

Re: Washington Post integrates Talk – Mozilla’s open-source commenting platform

#121

Post by redavni »

yeukhon wrote: post #30

Let me distract you from the actual content of the article first (I am sorry), because I am a little frustrated (I usually don't, and always almost give credits to the awesome works done by Mozilla; disclaimer: used to be a Mozilla intern). This article is too shy from actually showcase the product. Half of the article is devoted to PR announcement (which IMO is really a waste of time for most readers, even for the n…

They did give examples. The Miami Herald, which uses Facebook comments. PBS Frontline which uses Discus, and Omnivision or something...which I couldn't find any comments. lol

> perhaps showing examples

Re: Washington Post integrates Talk – Mozilla’s open-source commenting platform

#122

Post by 52-6F-62 »

laretluval wrote: post #114
inetknght wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What people want isn't necessarily what they need . When people's needs are satisfied, they want more of that . So let's satisfy their needs instead. Echo chambers are ultimately self-defeating as they bring on more divisiveness and intolerance.

Do internet comment sections satisfy any need?

If they provide an avenue for topical and reasonable discourse, then yes.

People (at least some people) tend toward the need for discourse to temper and test their ideas. I mean, you're commenting on HN.

Re: Washington Post integrates Talk – Mozilla’s open-source commenting platform

#123

Post by tasty_freeze »

I've always been frustrated by the Washington Post comment system. Many articles have hundreds, perhaps more than a thousand comments. When I revisit an article, I can sort by newest/oldest/highest replies or something like that. I can go to my user profile, select "my comments" and view my recent comments (though not in the context of the article they came from). For the comments I left where someone replied to me, I have no way to reply to them, other than to return to the article and hit "show more comments" 100 times and locate my comment and the reply so I can reply in turn.

I hope the new system fixes that. It is otherwise about impossible to hold a conversation, so it reduces the incentive to leave a comment in the first place.

Re: Washington Post integrates Talk – Mozilla’s open-source commenting platform

#124

Post by jamiek88 »

sampl wrote: post #115
Pxtl wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like a mix of Reddit google's network algorithm could work - don't just upvote/downvote the post, but lend the commenter's credibility. So upvotes from hordes of poo-flinging monkeys aren't weighted as heavily from upvotes from credible sources. Then the hack: this is a newspaper. They have no reason to be fair. Give community moderators super-credibility. So they can upvote people and not just give their co…

> It creates an echo-chamber, of course... but ultimately, that's what people want. I want to eat ice cream every day, but I also want to feel good and be healthy. Let's give people a little credit--if they're aware of their biases and are given tools to overcome them, a lot of folks might make the right choice.

Meanwhile the right merrily balkanises and wins elections over and over because their people are whipped up by their echo chambers about death panels or pizza shop pedophiles or made up controversy du jour.

The opposition can take the moral high road all the way to irrelevance.

As a counter point.

The NYT's job is to sell subscriptions. Faux 'balance' isn't going to sell one subscription to a Trump voter.

Re: Washington Post integrates Talk – Mozilla’s open-source commenting platform

#125

Post by ouid »

laretluval wrote: post #114
inetknght wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What people want isn't necessarily what they need . When people's needs are satisfied, they want more of that . So let's satisfy their needs instead. Echo chambers are ultimately self-defeating as they bring on more divisiveness and intolerance.

Do internet comment sections satisfy any need?

If the article is written in a way that isn't honest, I expect the top comment to describe how, and I expect the top comment to that to be a rebuttal. The best comment doesn't always reach the top, but it often does, and it's usually somewhere to be found. The exceptions are usually found in heavily moderated or highly specialized forums.

Re: Washington Post integrates Talk – Mozilla’s open-source commenting platform

#126

Post by enraged_camel »

laretluval wrote: post #114
inetknght wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What people want isn't necessarily what they need . When people's needs are satisfied, they want more of that . So let's satisfy their needs instead. Echo chambers are ultimately self-defeating as they bring on more divisiveness and intolerance.

Do internet comment sections satisfy any need?

If they didn't, HN wouldn't exist. ;)

Re: Washington Post integrates Talk – Mozilla’s open-source commenting platform

#127

Post by s73ver_ »

inetknght wrote: post #111
Pxtl wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like a mix of Reddit google's network algorithm could work - don't just upvote/downvote the post, but lend the commenter's credibility. So upvotes from hordes of poo-flinging monkeys aren't weighted as heavily from upvotes from credible sources. Then the hack: this is a newspaper. They have no reason to be fair. Give community moderators super-credibility. So they can upvote people and not just give their co…

What people want isn't necessarily what they need . When people's needs are satisfied, they want more of that . So let's satisfy their needs instead. Echo chambers are ultimately self-defeating as they bring on more divisiveness and intolerance.

Needs aren't as profitable.

Re: Washington Post integrates Talk – Mozilla’s open-source commenting platform

#128

Post by Clubber »

JacobJans wrote: post #32
Twirrim wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Better tools to filter out trolls leaves more space for healthy debate. The very nature of US political discourse itself leaves no space for healthy debate. I'm sceptical that removing the trolls is going to be sufficient to fix that.

> The very nature of US political discourse itself leaves no space for healthy debate. I am quite convinced that the nature of US political discourse is largely determined by the predominant media, and not by the individuals participating in the discourse. –– Cable news is incentivized to sensationalize any minor event, and to frame stories centered around conflict –– Social media rewards the most emotionally potent…

I agree with this. Sensationalism and conflict sells papers / ads. The comments section is just a reflection of the standard of the journalism business today. I would predict that any comment technology that lowers page views, even if it makes the conversation better, will be abandoned.

I would go one step further though, the news tries to make everything emotional (it obvious by the loaded words they use). Any emotional discussion can't be rational, almost by nature.

Re: Washington Post integrates Talk – Mozilla’s open-source commenting platform

#129

Post by s73ver_ »

jedberg wrote: post #102
thaumaturgy wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there are a few disadvantages Reddit has here. The first that comes to mind is that website administrators, especially for large and politically-charged sites, might like Reddit's software, but not its ... um, culture. "Just embed Reddit" sounds approximately like "just embed 4chan". While smaller sites are happy to give up some control for the sake of easily adding a major feature to their site, larger busin…

But that feels like a marketing fail. You don't have to accepts reddit's culture to embed it's comments. You can have a subreddit that you control where you can moderate it and remove any content you don't like. As a site owner, you can have full control over the content if you want.

But you still have to tell the reader to go to Reddit and make an account if they want to comment.

Re: Washington Post integrates Talk – Mozilla’s open-source commenting platform

#130

Post by seanwilson »

Pxtl wrote: post #31
creaghpatr wrote: post #4

Can't speak for WaPo but the New York Times comments sections are absolutely dominated by a handful of designated 'top commenters' who rush to post on any major story. Sometimes their comments are good, but then there's the guy who writes a poem every single time, or 'Socrates' who posts the same cookie-cutter 'blame-the-GOP-all-the-way-back-to-bush' comment with the most dramatic rhetoric possible, trolling for like…

It seems like a mix of Reddit google's network algorithm could work - don't just upvote/downvote the post, but lend the commenter's credibility. So upvotes from hordes of poo-flinging monkeys aren't weighted as heavily from upvotes from credible sources. Then the hack: this is a newspaper. They have no reason to be fair. Give community moderators super-credibility. So they can upvote people and not just give their co…

> It seems like a mix of Reddit google's network algorithm could work - don't just upvote/downvote the post, but lend the commenter's credibility. So upvotes from hordes of poo-flinging monkeys aren't weighted as heavily from upvotes from credible sources.

Are there site that do that? I know hackernews limits your voting abilities until you get so much karma.

Sounds like some variation of the above ideas would work great. The vote from a random troll who doesn't understand the community's rules shouldn't count as much as other votes but I'm not sure how you would implement it in a way that wouldn't be abused.

Post reply on HN